Re: [lamps] Warren Kumari's Block on charter-ietf-lamps-02-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On May 23, 2018 at 3:32:21 PM, Warren Kumari ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> ​So, here you say: "Add it up and it can take days on the web." and above
> that you say: "For typical systems I think the likely lifetime will be
> between 1 day and 1 week.  [...] , but I don’t think anything beyond 2
> weeks would ever count as short."
>
> "1 week" minus "days" is still greater than zero, and so it still *seems*
> to me that removing revocation is a bad idea -- but, my role is (or should
> be!) to make sure that this charter doesn't conflict with other work (esp.
> ops work), that the charter "describes the specific problem or deliverables
> (a guideline, standards specification, etc.) it has been formed to address.
> WG charters state the scope of work for group, and lay out goals and
> milestones that show how this work will be completed." It is (IMO) the
> sponsoring ADs, the WGs and IETFs decision as to if the ideas themselves
> are acceptable.
> I'm not (yet!) so arrogant that I'm sure I know the right answer to
> everything, so I'd like to discuss this with EKR on the call tomorrow
> <http://airmail.calendar/2018-05-24%2012:00:00%20EDT>, and will clear my
> block once I've been assured process is being followed
> / this has been considered.
>
> I agree with Warren’s assessment.
>
> However, I also think that a charter may give undue validation to items
> that would benefit from at least a little more description or
> consideration.  IOW, adding (to the charter) a longer description, and
> listing which things should be satisfied, or at least considered, seems
> like a good idea to me.
>
This was my request in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/paYqxqRL1LEEPgwOuGmUVB8V6lE/?qid=356aa0482508fa29bf866d05ea1981e6
and Stephen Farrell's agreement in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/Evk_hbJsHBuBGEnNaMCqaQEVceI